Re: politeness and quizzical questions
|Date:||Tuesday, January 18, 2005, 13:50|
Sorry... I didn't set reply-to...
--- Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> wrote:
> JC <jcolrich-dreams@...> writes:
> > For example, on a descending scale of "likely to
> > trigger a defensive response":
> > 1. Why the <bleep> are you doing it that way?
> > 2. Why are you doing it that way?
> > 3. Out of curiosity, why are you doing it that way?
> > I wanted to write #1, first wrote #2, and changed it
> > to #3. Speaking, I could say #2 with a quizzical tone
> > and look and it would equal #3.
> > Then, it being a rather dull Monday at work, I started
> > thinking about conlangs...
> Hihi. :-)
> > How do you do it? Mine doesn't have anything in
> > particular yet, but... Maybe a quizzical mood?
> Nice thoughts! My conlang Qthen|gai has a set of degree markers that
> can add a scaling to almost anything in the language. For it to
> the scale must have an end on one side, which will be identified with
> degree 0% and either a totally subjective and unpredictable other
> or no other end. That end of the scale will nevertheless be assigned
> 100% (this is technically rubbish, but it fits humans thoughts, I
> For scale like polite ... rude, this does not work, since it has two
> equal ends. Such a scale could be split into two parts where 0%
> polite = 0% rude, i.e., neutral.
That's neat. Including a neutral state as a valid opposing end lets you
could use it for quite a range of things. Though I might argue that
polite and rude are just as subjective and unpredictable as a neutral
state. Can you use it for most descriptive adjectives (or adverbs), or
just a defined set of things?
> Then you could use an adjunct to modify your question:
> <rude> + <degree 0%>
> This would indicate that you do not at all intend to be rude. Just
> case anyone would be inclined to think so. (Unless, of course, you
> use this ironically. :-))
"Not to be rude, but..." :-)
> For a full sentence you would need to add 'ask' and then translate
> 'Let me ask with 0% rudeness, whether ...'. I have not implemented
> this, but in Qthen|gai it is likely to be like:
> <case:genitive> + <rude> + <degree %0>
> <evidence:definition> +
> <valence:agent_unmentioned,patient_to_follow> + <ask>
> Note that this indicates two additional words in front of the main
> question (one of each line). But in fact, the first one can be
> incorporated into the second by applying some valence-changing
> operations. Then you'd just add one word (a long one) at the
> beginning of the question:
> <evidence:definition> + <valence:agent_to_follow,patient_in_word>
> + <ask> + <passive_voice> + <applicative_for_genitive_case>
> + <rude> + <degree %0>
I think I see, though I'm a bit confused by the explanation.
> The structure of this is *very* hard (I think it's impossible) to
> clear in an English sentence. However, it *means* something like:
> 'Hereby it is being asked 0% rudely: ...'
> PS: Like other conlangs, I've planned already to include personal
> inclination markers to denote how convinced you are of your own
> utterance. These probably work very similarly to the above.
I've seen that in a few places. It seems like it would fit very nicely
into your degree structure. I like it... very flexible too.